Questions from Christians Regarding Evolution

[John Bauer]

I would like to hear this explanation from a theistic evolutionist. Or any Christian who claims to be an evolutionist also.

So where does a literal Adam come in, or the fall of man?

I answered that when you first asked (about an hour ago): “Adam (and the Fall) is far more recent, approximately 6,000 years ago.”

P.S. (for @Carbon): I am not an evolutionist, theistic or otherwise. I am a creationist, specifically an evolutionary creationist—or, if you like, an old-earth creationist who accepts evolution.

 

[QVQ]

To avoid Evolution as the Grand Theory of Everything I confine evolution to organisms and the changes over time self same are subject thereto.
Everything is in motion and patterns are shifting and rearranging in nature. It is according to the laws of physics. Changes in rocks and planetary orbits are not evolution.

The basic premise of Darwinist Evolution, which is confined to organisms, is that the organisms adapt to the shifting and rearranging patterns through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.
The actual study of these premises are genetics and archeology.

Archeology is circumstantial.The stories told or invented to connect this bone to that bone are speculative, could have wildly differing interpretations with a paucity of evidence wherein missing links outnumber fossils by a magnitude greater than known numbers.
Example: A plane is found. Around the plane are pig bones. The news reports : new scientific find proves pigs can fly.
Under the scepticism and scrutiny of the Intelligent Design and other scientist there is more caution in scientific circles regarding fossils and stories derived from such.

Genetics: This is the foundation science of evolution as genetics is mutation and whether the mutant can or will be selected.
So far, manipulation by man of genetic material (domestic) has proven to be a failure as all manipulations are unstable.
Mutants are deselected by several means and evolution has not and possibly cannot occur

 

[Carbon]

I answered that when you first asked (about an hour ago): “Adam (and the Fall) is far more recent, approximately 6,000 years ago.”

P.S. (for @Carbon): I am not an evolutionist, theistic or otherwise. I am a creationist, specifically an evolutionary creationist—or, if you like, an old-earth creationist who accepts evolution.

Then that would mean Adam and Eve were not the first humans?

 

[seer]

I answered that when you first asked (about an hour ago): “Adam (and the Fall) is far more recent, approximately 6,000 years ago.”

How did all men die in Adam if there were millions of other men living at the time and living before Adam?

 

[John Bauer]

Then that would mean Adam and Eve were not the first humans?

That is what follows, yes.

 

[John Bauer]

It is Christmas Eve and we have family coming over shortly. I will not be able to respond more fully until tomorrow morning. (I usually wake up around 3:30 in the morning, Pacific time.)

Until then …

How did all men die in Adam if there were millions of other men living at the time and living before Adam?

What do you mean by “die” here? Are you talking about biological death? If so, please demonstrate that Scripture defines life and death in terms of anthropocentric biology, and that Paul was speaking about death in those terms in Romans 5.

 

[QVQ]

Merry Christmas!

 

[Carbon]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

 

[seer]

It is Christmas Eve and we have family coming over shortly. I will not be able to respond more fully until tomorrow morning. (I usually wake up around 3:30 in the morning, Pacific time.)

Until then …



What do you mean by “die” here? Are you talking about biological death? If so, please demonstrate that Scripture defines life and death in terms of anthropocentric biology, and that Paul was speaking about death in those terms in Romans 5.

It doesn't matter, whether spiritual or biological - all men, especially the millions who lived before Adam, did not share in that death. Nor would the millions who lived in the time of Adam.

"The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression."

So the Westminster Catechism is wrong?

 

[John Bauer]

It doesn't matter, whether spiritual or biological.

It really does. People tend to define life and death in terms of anthropocentric biology, but Scripture does not.

All men, especially the millions who lived before Adam, did not share in that death.

True—and false.

The millions who lived before Adam did not share in the death his disobedience introduced. [1]

But all those who lived at that time and afterward have shared in it (via federal headship).

"The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression."

So the Westminster Catechism is wrong?

Yes, because it contains material that is derived from tradition, not Scripture. (Confessions and catechisms should express tradition, not be derived from it.) The Shorter Catechism ought to say, “Q: Did all mankind fall in Adam’s first disobedience? A: Since the covenant was made not only for Adam but also for his offspring, all mankind sinned in him and fell with him in his first disobedience.”

(This is nearly word-for-word the modern translation of the Shorter Catechism, published in 2010 by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The only change I made was substituting “offspring” in place of “natural descendants,” in order to maintain the symmetry of Pauline theology.

---

Footnotes:

[1] On my view, at least, those who lived and died before Adam did not share in his death. But I am open to the argument that they did. As far as I can tell, it was Perry Phillips (2006) who first put forward the argument for the retroactive effects of Adam’s fall, which was later taken up by William Dembski (2009). The argument runs like this: If Christ’s righteousness can be imputed backward in time, then Adam’s sin can be as well. If Adam’s sin cannot be imputed backward, then Christ’s righteousness cannot be either—implying that no one before the cross was saved, a conclusion Christians must reject. See: Perry G. Phillips, “Did Animals Die before the Fall?” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, no. 2 (2006): 146-147; William A. Dembski, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2009).

 

[seer]

It really does. People tend to define life and death in terms of anthropocentric biology, but Scripture does not.



True—and false.

The millions who lived before Adam did not share in the death his disobedience introduced. [1]

But all those who lived at that time and afterward have shared in it (via federal headship).



Yes, because it contains material that is derived from tradition, not Scripture. (Confessions and catechisms should express tradition, not be derived from it.) The Shorter Catechism ought to say, “Q: Did all mankind fall in Adam’s first disobedience? A: Since the covenant was made not only for Adam but also for his offspring, all mankind sinned in him and fell with him in his first disobedience.”

(This is nearly word-for-word the modern translation of the Shorter Catechism, published in 2010 by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The only change I made was substituting “offspring” in place of “natural descendants,” in order to maintain the symmetry of Pauline theology.

---

Footnotes:

[1] On my view, at least, those who lived and died before Adam did not share in his death. But I am open to the argument that they did. As far as I can tell, it was Perry Phillips (2006) who first put forward the argument for the retroactive effects of Adam’s fall, which was later taken up by William Dembski (2009). The argument runs like this: If Christ’s righteousness can be imputed backward in time, then Adam’s sin can be as well. If Adam’s sin cannot be imputed backward, then Christ’s righteousness cannot be either—implying that no one before the cross was saved, a conclusion Christians must reject. See: Perry G. Phillips, “Did Animals Die before the Fall?” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, no. 2 (2006): 146-147; William A. Dembski, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2009).

First, you have no Biblical evidence that humans existed before Adam, second you have no Biblical evidence that Adam's sin was imputed to these ancient humans who supposedly lived before Adam or even at the time of Adam.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

Again a plain reading of the text tells us that sin entered humankind through one man, that we are all Adam's offspring.

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

So in realty you don't believe that Adam was source of the all nations

 

[John Bauer]

First, you have no biblical evidence that humans existed before Adam

I have no direct evidence that humans existed before Adam. But then I also have zero biblical evidence—not even indirect—that all triangles have three sides, or that the Egyptian pharaoh during the latter part of the Babylonian exile was Amasis II, or that the rotation of Uranus has an axial tilt greater than 90 degrees. There are countless things that are true, historical, or real for which Scripture provides no evidence at all.

You are making an argument from silence, which is a valid move if, and only if, Scripture is an exhaustive encyclopedia of facts. But it is not, which makes an argument from silence invalid (fallacious). Scripture is a normative, covenantal witness to redemptive history, which means the evidence it provides is selective and contextual, not exhaustive.

Scripture is about Christ Jesus and the history of our salvation in him for the glory of God. That scope necessarily entails silence on a vast host of things. Since we should expect Scripture to be silent about many things that are true, its silence here cannot function as a denial.

So, unless you are prepared to argue that whatever Scripture doesn’t mention or support is thereby false or doesn’t exist, I am not sure what the intended takeaway was supposed to be.

Second, you have no biblical evidence that Adam’s sin was imputed to these ancient humans who supposedly lived … at the time of Adam.

That is incorrect. However, your objection is imprecise. I will need you to be more specific. Are you denying

• that Adam functioned as a federal head over fallen humanity (Rom 5:12–19)?
  
  ​
• that God constituted humanity as one moral organism under representation (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15)?
  
  ​
• that God first created humanity and then appointed Adam as covenantal head (Gen 1–2 read canonically)?
  
  ​
• that the covenant of works persists as violated law with curse in force (Rom 3:19; Gal 3:10)?

Again, as for those who lived before Adam: Since I believe (a) that Scripture is a normative, covenantal witness to redemptive history, (b) that redemptive history dawned on earth roughly 6,000 years ago with Adam, and (c) that the millions—billions?—who lived and died before Adam didn’t share in the death that his disobedience introduced, clearly no biblical evidence could be expected for them (just as there is none for the Shang dynasty, which nevertheless existed).

A plain reading of the text tells us that sin entered humankind through one man, …

A position that my view strongly affirms.

[A plain reading of the text tells us] that we are all Adam's offspring: “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.”

So in realty you don't believe that Adam was source of the all nations

That is from a modern English translation. The inspired text of Scripture was not the English copy you’re holding but original manuscripts written in Koine Greek. Appeals to “a plain reading of the text” must reckon with the text as written, not merely with how it’s rendered in modern translations.

On that note, the word “man” does not appear in the earliest manuscripts; it‘s a later interpolation. When you understand that it actually says “he made from one every nation of mankind” and the context into which Paul is speaking, you realize this isn’t about Adam at all.

 

[By the Book]

If Christ’s righteousness can be imputed backward in time, then Adam’s sin can be as well.

I never thought of it that way. Very fascinating. Thank you.

 

[seer]

I don't know what Greek text you are referring to:

17:26 ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς αἵματός πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ προσώπον τῆς γῆς ὁρίσας προτεταγμένους καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν

He made from one blood (ἑνὸς αἵματός) all nations, all mankind. This is why every translation says from one man God made all mankind. Can you list the Commentaries or Scholars or translators who don't believe this is pointing to Adam? Your ad hoc justifications just don't work.

 

[John Bauer]

I don't know what Greek text you are referring to:

17:26 ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς αἵματός πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ προσώπον τῆς γῆς ὁρίσας προτεταγμένους καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν
​

He made from one blood (ἑνὸς αἵματός) all nations, all mankind. This is why every translation says from one man God made all mankind.

“Your ad hoc justifications just don't work,” you declared—but you’re getting ahead of yourself.

First, not every translation says “from one man” or “blood.” Most do, sure, but not all. The 1977 NASB doesn’t have it, neither does the RSV, and so on. And then on top of that, several translations do include the word “man” but place it in italics—such as the modern NASB or the Berean Literal Bible—which is the standard convention for signaling that the word is supplied by the translators and is not present in the Greek text.

Second, arguing that translations say “from one man” or “blood” ignores the ad fontes issue entirely. “Appeals to ‘a plain reading of the text’ must reckon with the text as written, not merely with how it’s rendered in modern translations,” I said. Again, that word does not appear in the earliest manuscripts; it‘s a later interpolation.

Third, you quoted the Textus Receptus or a Greek text from the Byzantine textual tradition (Majority Text). Many critical editions, like Nestle-Aland (NA28)—the standard scholarly critical text used in academic exegesis—read simply ἐξ ἑνός, omitting αἵματος, an omission that reflects the recognition that it’s a later interpolation. Reviewing the parallel Greek (here) shows the split plainly:

• NA/UBS: ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων …
• TR/Byzantine: ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς αἵματος πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων

Can you list the commentaries or scholars or translators who don't believe this is pointing to Adam?

Yes, of course: F. F. Bruce, Charles K. Barrett, W. Robertson Nicoll, James D. G. Dunn, Ben Witherington III, Craig S. Keener, etc. My understanding of this text aligns most closely with that of W. Robertson Nicoll, taking my cue from Malachi 2:10. Here is what I argue (as I posted recently):

Yes, God made of one every nation of men—but one what? I believe the surrounding context (vv. 24-29) provides that answer (cf. Mal 2:10), especially a historical understanding of the first-century Athenians and their religious ideas. (I highly recommend the Expositor's Bible Commentary by W. Robertson Nicoll.) Against the Stoics and Epicurians (v. 18), Paul explained (a) that we are all of one God, not many gods, (b) that the visible world is not identical to God but is rather his purposeful creation, and (c) that God is personally and deeply invested in this world. This message would also constitute a subversive polemic against these Athenians who maintained a sharp, radical distinction between themselves and the outside barbaric world. No, said Paul, from one were all the nations of the earth made, one whose providential care "determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live," etc.

 

[seer]

“Your ad hoc justifications just don't work,” you declared—but you’re getting ahead of yourself.

First, not every translation says “from one man” or “blood.” Most do, sure, but not all. The 1977 NASB doesn’t have it, neither does the RSV, and so on. And then on top of that, several translations do include the word “man” but place it in italics—such as the modern NASB or the Berean Literal Bible—which is the standard convention for signaling that the word is supplied by the translators and is not present in the Greek text.

Second, arguing that translations say “from one man” or “blood” ignores the ad fontes issue entirely. “Appeals to ‘a plain reading of the text’ must reckon with the text as written, not merely with how it’s rendered in modern translations,” I said. Again, that word does not appear in the earliest manuscripts; it‘s a later interpolation.

Third, you quoted the Textus Receptus or a Greek text from the Byzantine textual tradition (Majority Text). Many critical editions, like Nestle-Aland (NA28)—the standard scholarly critical text used in academic exegesis—read simply ἐξ ἑνός, omitting αἵματος, an omission that reflects the recognition that it’s a later interpolation. Reviewing the parallel Greek (here) shows the split plainly:

• NA/UBS: ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων …
• TR/Byzantine: ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς αἵματος πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων

Yes, of course: F. F. Bruce, Charles K. Barrett, W. Robertson Nicoll, James D. G. Dunn, Ben Witherington III, Craig S. Keener, etc. My understanding of this text aligns most closely with that of W. Robertson Nicoll, taking my cue from Malachi 2:10. Here is what I argue (as I posted recently):

Yes, God made of one every nation of men—but one what? I believe the surrounding context (vv. 24-29) provides that answer (cf. Mal 2:10), especially a historical understanding of the first-century Athenians and their religious ideas. (I highly recommend the Expositor's Bible Commentary by W. Robertson Nicoll.) Against the Stoics and Epicurians (v. 18), Paul explained (a) that we are all of one God, not many gods, (b) that the visible world is not identical to God but is rather his purposeful creation, and (c) that God is personally and deeply invested in this world. This message would also constitute a subversive polemic against these Athenians who maintained a sharp, radical distinction between themselves and the outside barbaric world. No, said Paul, from one were all the nations of the earth made, one whose providential care "determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live," etc.

Good Lord, God made of one every nation of men. God made of one God every nation? Really, is that what you are saying?

 

[John Bauer]

Good Lord, God made of one every nation of men. God made of one God every nation? Really, is that what you are saying?

No, that is not what I said—and you know it. That is a crude caricature. I am not saying God made humanity out of God. I am saying that ἐξ ἑνὸς (“from one”) is intentionally indefinite and functions to assert the unity of humanity under one Creator in a polemic against Athenian polytheism and ethnocentrism. Adam may be inferred theologically, but he is not stated or argued in the text. (Others infer a reference to Noah. One of our members here takes that view. Still others, myself among them, infer a reference to Abraham; that is whom God explicitly promised to constitute many nations (Gen 12:3; 17:4–6), the biblical figure through whom “all nations” are intentionally gathered into one divine purpose.

 

[John Bauer]

I spent the majority of today carving out the following post for the Exegesis thread:

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/from-one-man-–-a-look-at-acts-17-26.3488/